Can you explain the inequality itself in-depth including the statistics (not by just stating the stats themselves)?

['in-depth' ? If you want a forensic psychological, environmental, or sociological analysis to explain statistical differences between subsets of any universal set, you would be looking at a 'decades in the making', all encompassing, longitudinal survey. This would be difficult to accomplish, due to time required, privacy concerns, honesty of non-achieving populations, and/or financial constraints, even for Universities or the State, much less individuals.

There's also the problem of the a-priori biases of the 'Liberal' mindset. Any University or State Agency attempting such a survey would likely fall back on the Margaret Mead philosophy/lie that ALL races and societies are equivalent. This philosophy 'forces' the conclusion that any deficiencies of any population set is strictly explainable by 'environmental' factors, i.e., "Whitey...(1) made me do it", (2)...did it to me, or (3) ...is holding me back.

It also appears that you are positing the argument that one cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from an analysis of statistics. An argument which is an Appeal to Ignorance, and would be, in essence, an 'a-priori' restriction of the validity of facts and/or conclusions to that which are already within the paradigm of the liberal philosophy. I have to ask, wouldn't that render any attempt to answer that question, as you asked it, to be meaningless?

In other words, you are trying to 'win' the argument by rigging the definition of the terms of the argument. The stats do speak volumes, if you are willing to study them.]

If we're speaking in terms of some biological equivalency, no, we are not equals.

[Correct.]

This understanding does not however, imply some idea of inferiority. Being that race is a social construct,

[Wrong.]

a construct that is not static (meaning it does not change), [Actually, if you say a construct or anything else is not static, you are saying that it DOES change.]

would make race irrelevant in some biological standard.

['some' biological standard? Which biological standard? How can you say that there are any biological 'standards', if 'races' are only figments (constructs) of our imagination? Race is NOT a social construct, it is a genetic reality.]

I would have to also include that race is still definitely real as a social construct, and so it still holds some relevance, in terms of discrimination, historical disputes between different races and ethnic groups.

[How can there be historical disputes between, or discrimination against, any race by any other race, if races are only figments of our imaginations? The lack of logic within your argument speaks volumes.]

So I would have to conclude that you are just racking up statistics but don't have a clear sense of how or why they are why they are, except to state that race plays a clear sense in why negroes perform poorly or behave poorly, which would seem like you sense that race is a biological standard. But it is not.

[Your conclusion, again, assumes that one cannot derive factual, or valid, conclusions from an analysis of FBI crime statistics.]

If that were true, it should make sense that all negroes would behave in this standard,

[Actually, it would not. The Bell Curve is a visual representation of the distribution of behaviors or traits within a given universal set or subset. Now of course there are outliers of any statistical curve, that's what gives it its 'Bell' shape. There are Blacks who are intelligent, and Whites who are not. But just because some Blacks are intelligent, does not mean that the 'Bell Curve' and any analysis or conclusions derived from it are invalid. You are trying to force a conclusion based on a misrepresentation of the facts. The facts do remain, however, that the differences of IQ as well as any other behavior or trait do follow the shape of the Bell Curve.]

if we're speaking in terms of dna and pre-wired patterns of behavior. But because most people understand that there are intelligent black people around, this would have to contradict with your reasoning.

[It does not, for the reason outlined above, i.e., the Bell Curve is a valid accounting of the distribution of differences of various traits within and across various populations, including IQ, whether one likes it or not.]

A human is a human. You might get a better understanding of this from a sociological perspective.

[The old Straw Man Fallacy. Who said that Blacks weren't human? The results of statistical analysis of behavioral differences between races doesn't say who is, or isn't human. However, the FBI statistics do demonstrate a predilection toward crime and anti-social behavior on the part of Blacks within the United States of America.

An analysis within the confines of sociological philosophy would render any analysis to be irrelevant or moot, due to it's bias toward the nurture philosophy in the nature vs nurture debate.

Sociology, (the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings, or, the study of social constructs and structures within and across different races) is 'libtard-speak' for Margaret Mead's lie that all cultures are equivalent. They are NOT. The tribe she studied did have instances of rape and violence, which she conveniently omitted from her writings. FBI stats demonstrate the logical errors of that. Thus, any argument based on sociological analysis is doomed to be illogical.

Finally, I want to address your misuse of the term 'race'. Referring to race as some euphemistic construct denies physical reality and dictionary definition, to wit, "A group of human beings, global or geographic, with physically transmitted characteristics which are distinct enough to differentiate any group of humans as a race."

By trying to euphemize the term race into a 'construct' or 'figment of one's imagination', instead of a dictionary-defined genetic reality, you demonstrate a disingenuous intention to manipulate and deceive.

Furthermore, your euphemization of the term race is a form of the Logical Fallacy of Equivocation, which goes like this.

"If the Black race and the White race mix together, and the children of that union are still of the Human race, it is OK."

The subtle change in definition of the term race from subset to the universal set is not identified, not justified, and so is wrongly used as the justification for the conclusion. It is misleading and manipulative.

By trying to change the definition of the term race, you are trying to destabilize the cognitive ability of anyone reading your argument. You are indeed 'rigging the argument'.]

Are you a Pee Wee Herman? "I know you are but what am I?"
You're a strawman plain and simple.

Here you substitute a truth of nature in general, for the position we are making. One which is in difference to your generalization.

Result - strawman

As you failed in understanding that equality is not "being the same as" so you have failed in understanding that a strawman isn't a person, it is an argument and it isn't just an argument you don't like or can't understand. Its when I say "I believe that while people are different they have equal moral worth" and you say "people are different libtard can't you see that, you are a moron".

Debating is a truth of nature in general is it??

Quote:

Originally Posted by quaere

Here you substitute your own opinion whilst calling his (which is backed by mountains of evidence) arbitrary and "unfair."Remember, you don't have "conclusive" evidence supporting you're "opinion."

Result - strawman

Now you are failing to understand his argument as well as mine, MattWhiteAmerica isn't arguing that blacks are not equal to whites SIMPLY because they're black - he's saying it is because they perform less well in intelligence tests. So his position isn't arbitrary. (Although that doesn't make it correct in my opinion)

Quote:

Originally Posted by quaere

You did this twice. Trying to substitute an argument of whether the existence or non existence of god/deity could be proven, for the argument we are having which does (again) contain MOUNTAINS of evidence and debate within the global community. You're "conclusive" thing backfired.

Result - strawman

I have explained my analogy, no evidence conclusively proves/disproves the existence of God and none conclusively proves/disproves the INHERENT intelligence of groups. Arguments about both degenerate into name calling and insults. They are not the same set of arguments - but just both as pointless to debate in my opinion until conclusive evidence emerges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quaere

Here you subjectively substitute another idea. You suggest that the larger percentage of populace "doesn't" provide for criminal statistic. In actuality they do, you just refuse to look at hard statistic distributed throughout all categories of crime and degeneration.

You refuse to understand that we measure things in relativity. Not by some concrete, 0% percent baseline. Like in school, we're only really worried about half of the 100%. To go beyond 60% even, is socially unrecognized. As in genetics, we see that 2% is astronomical when considering likeness. That with 4 base pairs of dna, we can only assume that the lowest given amount of ANY shared relation is 25%. On and on... You are just using strawman argument over and over again.

You refuse to acknowledge that the number of criminal acts, are an outrage in COMPARISON. You utilize ratio comparison, yet ignore ours when we suggest that it overshadows even that of the MAJORITY POPULACE IN OUR NATION. Thereby rotting the whole.

You refuse to acknowledge that relative comparisons between groups are distinct from inherent characteristics within a group. To make a relative comparison you just need to demonstrate one group does something more or less than another, to make a claim about an inherent characteristic you need to demonstrate every single member (or at least the vast majority) of a group does or does not do a particular thing BECAUSE they belong to that group.

It is bad logic to go from "the majority of men commit more crime" to "men are inherently criminal". If you support that kind of bad logic then you support those extreme feminists that want all woman societies or elitists who want all 120+ IQ societies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quaere

You've also ignored my words about whether or not a society should look past the huge negative outpouring it sees within a populace, in an effort to keep those that are "valuable." That's what your real argument is.
I suggested that you do all of your co-workers jobs, and then shut your mouth when everyone gets paid the same.

I could throw many other statistics at you right now besides crime. Such as; IQ (you already ignored that one), welfare, poverty, stds, marriage, drug use, etc.

Again, why ignore my reference to the moldy bread? What benefit do we gain from blacks, or non-whites in specific? They are garbage, and they do nothing but draw upon the system as a whole. Supporting it just sends out a message to others. "Come to America, they'll take care of you, no matter what!" You are the enemy, and you pave the way for our genocide with your libtarded approach to EVERYTHING.

Result - strawman[/B]

I did not ignore either things, you just don't like my argument against them. Your "huge negative outpouring" is the minority of the populace - your real argument is the majority of black americans should be punished for the behaviour of a minority within their group in order to improve the safety of another group i.e. white americans.

An extreme feminist could make the exact same argument, the majority of men should suffer for the behaviour of a minority of them in order to improve the safety of another group i.e. women. Their argument is faulty and so is yours.

I clearly used your mouldy bread argument against you by pointing out that every slice of bread will have mould on it, the black american slice may be more mouldy than the white american slice but since YOU said you don't pick mould off of bread because you don't want to "risk it" then by your logic you'd throw out both slices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quaere

Here you go again strawman..
Like grandma said, "if you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything." Let me explain how you tripped on your ****** lovin' lips.

IF melanin levels, or estrogen levels, are held IN COMPARISON TO EACH OTHER, THEN they give us a basis for discerning DIFFERENCE (IE INEQUALITY). At some level these percentages are the SAME, yet deviate in one magnitude or another, to manifest the differences between race and sex. I thought this was simple to understand. You shot your own foot. Low IQ and CRIME are inseparable attributes to the black race. Therefore, we can attribute this as INHERENT to that race.

I guess that's what happens when you try to make everything EQUAL. You end up discussing the "differences."

The same bad logic. A relative difference is just a relative difference, it doesn't necessarily address inherent attributes. Differences are easy to demonstrate, inherent attributes are not. Male Americans commit more crime than Female Americans, there may be some crime where the percentages are the SAME, yet overall they deviate in magnitude which shows an overall difference. Simple to understand. To go from that simple understanding to the belief that CRIME is an inseparable attribute to males is BAD LOGIC...the vast majority of men manage not to commit crimes...so how can it be inherent to men???

Quote:

Originally Posted by quaere

You've lied about plenty. You whole theory of "equal worth" is being portrayed as solid evidence. Your self interest lies in the fact that you aren't White and therefore are defending your existence within my country. You have not backed it up with ANYTHING other than utopian pipe dreams. Strawman through and through. Switch and bait, switch and bait. The statistics Matt threw out still stand strawman.

I speak out, in the necessary DEFENSE of my people. You subscribe to a doctrine which seeks to destroy it. Not to mention you are discussing a minority. Again you try to generalize yourself as being the great equalizer of "all peoples." Ignoring the fact that most of them would spit on you, right before they torched you.

No, its being portrayed as my beliefs - I stated that clearly, I believe all humans have equal worth. You don't know that I'm not white either so that's a combination of ad hominem and strawman on your part - quite an achievement.

Beliefs and ideas about moral issues are backed up with logical arguments as well as statistics, I used Matt's own statistics to illustrate my arguments in the first post as well as logic. My doctrine doesn't seek to destroy anything, as a couple of others have pointed out, a belief in equality doesn't actually contradict a belief in White Nationalism. You can believe people have equal worth but argue that they are too different to co-exist successfully. You are just so angry, quaere, that somebody doesn't believe exactly what you do that you can't even recognize their ideas aren't actually threatening your cause. Luckily, others do, otherwise your cause would be doomed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quaere

Whether we are all necessary, is OUR business. You continually try to generalize it over and over again. Again you substitute something I'm not saying, grasping for the strawman argument. In fact, I don't believe all Whites are worth it at the moment. Some are just as brainwashed as you. Some have already committed the atrocity of miscegenation. Some are in bed with the jew, as you well know. On and on. As I said before, that's our business.

As a whole and IN COMPARISON to the rest of the world, we are the best and brightest. There is a reason it's called "westernization," instead of "easternization," or "africanization." There is a reason you muds flock to us like moths to a flame. There is a reason the jew hides within power circles, invoking enough sway to steal the fruit of our labors.

In the global picture, NAY even just within the US, blacks do NOT contribute anything worth mentioning. They take as a whole, much more than they give. We will not equalize things, in some great compromise. We will continually let statistic and reality represent itself. We will always notice the thing which is the most negative, even if it's structure "seems" benign. We still must excise the tumor.

Above and beyond all of this discussion, it must be understood by tools like you, that we are here to TAKE BACK what is ours, before it is destroyed. We will not question whether this one or that one is good or can be considered equal. We only want a White Nation for Whites. Does that not compute in your libtarded head? What did you hope to accomplish here, by playing strawman? That you would make someone "doubt" whether or not blacks are useful or equal? People who lurk here, use common sense. (Either that or they are trolling.) They come here because they notice the difference between a White value system, and that of the non-white. Blacks "usefulness" ended with slavery, and now it's time to go. I hope you go with them, but I doubt you will, at least until you've completed your internship over at the SPLC.

We have created the greatest advancements in history. We have a right to delineate as any other, especially at 9% of the global population. That's disproves your "equal worth" moron, it's just above your perception level. We are such a small population, yet we provide so much. You only care for self justification. Your double standard is laughable. You expect us to adopt a "equal moral right" scenario, while you try to take it from us? Everyone else has equal representation in this world, yet you think Whites should give up theirs. You are the enemy, we don't expect anything but.

You're just too stupid to realize that you've already had your perverted, nonsensical, self-serving rhetoric, stomped into the ground by us here. You thought we were weak, and you found out we're not. So go ahead, give another strawman argument-

As I argued "great achievements" are irrelevant to moral worth, your diatribe doesn't disprove anything. Of the small population you are talking about only a handful of those actually created world changing technology, most people don't do anything particularly remarkable and are entitled to peaceful and happy lives as much as those geniuses are. The purpose of my legitimate argument was to demonstrate.

Just because somebody doesn't agree exactly with your beliefs it doesn't make them an enemy or stupid. Actually, if there was a vote tomorrow to decide whether an all white country should exist for whites who wanted to live there I would vote in favour of it because I respect the equal right of all people to pursue the life that makes you happy...as long as you aren't destroying other people's lives to achieve it - no double standards there.

A strong person doesn't need to continually insult the person they are arguing with nor make make thinly veiled threats about IP addresses, they don't need to exert energy attempting to dismantle arguments that don't even threaten their own beliefs.

The concept of “equality” is declared a lie by every evidence of Nature. It is a search for the lowest common denominator, and its pursuit will destroy every superior race, nation, or culture. In order for a plow horse to run as fast as a race horse you would first have to cripple the race horse; conversely, in order for a race horse to pull as much as a plow horse, you would first have to cripple the plow horse. In either case, the pursuit of equality is the destruction of excellence.

I think the concept of absolute equality is incorrect and destructive in society, in the UK everyone is encouraged to go to university when in actuality not everyone is suited to academic study and as a result many people are wasting 3 or 4 years studying something they will never excel in or meaningfully contribute to when they could be developing a trade or skill they could excel in or meaningfully contribute to.

However I think the concept of simple equality or equal value, which does not mean that people are the same, is actually supported by nature. Horses that plow fields are important just as race horses are - we don't need to cripple either, we need to acknowledge they are both valuable. Nature is so finely balanced by so many different important elements, none of which are absolutely equal but all of which are equally valuable. What we need in society is less absolute equality (i.e. everyone is the same) and more moral equality (every positive role is valuable). By saying graduates are more valuable than plumbers we've ended up with too many mediocre graduates and not enough quality plumbers in the UK for example.

The definition is totally dependent on intelligence as nothing is more important within humanity then our ability to create, think and to invent. If every piece of data ever shown supports this from 80cc less brain matter to the SAT, ACT, Iq score then it’s likely so. Crime is far more likely with a lower iq throughout the races, but lets remember a far higher percentage of blacks have a lower iq on the means.…The question with this being said is do negroids harm our society? I’d think so as murdering at 5 times the rate of whites or lowering our school standards are both BAD for our nation.

a) If intelligence is the MOST important thing for humanity then the most intelligent societies should always perform better. If even one country of higher average IQ performs worse than another country of lower average IQ then one or more other factors must be more important than IQ. So why is Russia less developed than Barbados? According to The Human Development Index Russia's development index is 0.755 whereas Barbados' is 0.793 (List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) however according to Richard Lynn's book "Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations" Russia's average IQ is 96 whereas Barbados' is 78 (Title).

A very big difference in IQ has manifested very little difference in development between the two countries, in fact the much lower IQ country is slightly more developed. Clearly intelligence is not the MOST important factor but rather one of many important factors in determining success.

Given this, intelligence is only one of many things that determines success - why should IQ alone determine who is equal?

b) Intelligence and crime are related, all evidence supports that correlation but the data also supports other (stronger) correlations.
Women, across all IQs, don't commit crimes (particularly violent crimes) at anywhere near the same rate as men do. Whether someone is male or female is a much better indication of whether they will commit crimes than IQ or race is. So while poor black men are "worse" for society than poor white men in terms of crime, white men are "worse" for society than black women.

An extremist militant feminist could make the exact same argument you have, with even stronger evidence, that men are "bad" for society and should be separated from women.

Given that IQ is only one of many things correlated with crime, then why should the relationship between IQ and crime play more of an important role in who is equal than the relationship between gender and crime?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demonstrating superiority is clearly not important to the cause of separation. If Black Americans were more intelligent and committed less crime White Nationalists still wouldn't be happy to share communities with them. Proving they are inferior is unneccessary and irrelevant. It is also detrimental to your cause as most people will not take you seriously and just see you as extremists. All you are doing is alienating potential supporters.

Most people respect the desire to preserve a culture or people, I would vote in favour of WNs having their own all-White communities if it could happen peacefully but the more I read this forum, the more I suspect that wouldn't be possible. It seems a lot of WNs don't want non-whites to even exist. I'm starting to suspect some wouldn't be happy with other "lesser" groups using up space and resources that their "better" people could have

Everyone is equal. We are all humans, although granted black ppl do resemble apes as well. We are all flesh and bones so we are equal. True light skin is nicer. True blue eyes are nicer but that all is moot. We all eat, s*** and die.

Also you may not like blacks but you cant deny the influence theyve provided for the world

Well, for any logical thinking human being, black influence has been bad for humanity. Can you imagine how much better off this planet would be if whites and east asians could get at even a third of the resources of Africa? The sad reality is that a worthless population that breeds by rape and doesn't give a damn about their own populations own betterment "owns" all those resources. Same as any other crap hole that is majority black...How much support does my argument need? O'**** you won't even consider the meaning of such as it goes against your "pre-programing". Like a robot. Stats or reality doesn't enter your equation.

This same population of negroes, (meso's, arabs) within the "white" western world makes up a large percentage of the murder, rapes and crime based on the stats I've posted. However, they're the ones that scream about how unfairly they're treated. No matter, the crimes they cause...Sick mindset you people have. Five times as likely as a white man to KILL a black is. Let that sink into your goddamn head for a second! Equal what?

@ NothingIsPermanent, after Michael King aka Dr. Martin Luther King achieved equal rights for Negroes in this country, he went immediately to try to achieve economic parity for Negroes with Whites. You often hear this argument still today: if blacks make less money then there is still discrimination against them. Likewise, the difference in crime rates between Negroes and Whites is not seen by liberals as a fundamental behavioral difference between the two races, it is seen, no, it is "proof" that our justice system is flawed and well as our prison system.

What equality means for Negroes is "the same" and what is being pointed out to you by everyone is they are not "the same".

As you failed in understanding that equality is not "being the same as" so you have failed in understanding that a strawman isn't a person, it is an argument and it isn't just an argument you don't like or can't understand.

A strawman is something which resembles a human so full of crap, it is easily knocked down, AND it is a method of argument.

You are a strawman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

Now you are failing to understand his argument as well as mine, MattWhiteAmerica isn't arguing that blacks are not equal to whites SIMPLY because they're black - he's saying it is because they perform less well in intelligence tests. So his position isn't arbitrary. (Although that doesn't make it correct in my opinion)

Nope, your wrong.
Matt is simply providing mountains of evidence, as proof that negroes are by no means our equals. Through performance observation, we clearly see that negative statistic, IN COMPARISON, can be largely attributed to the black race. This itself helps to define the inherent quality.

You can not understand the word inherent, without admitting it's existence through observation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

I have explained my analogy, no evidence conclusively proves/disproves the existence of God and none conclusively proves/disproves the INHERENT intelligence of groups. Arguments about both degenerate into name calling and insults. They are not the same set of arguments - but just both as pointless to debate in my opinion until conclusive evidence emerges.

You used it as a divisive tool, for us here at SF. You are the enemy and as such are expected to do so. I called you out on it, plain and simple.

You happened to utilize your strawman methodology to do so, which is ridiculous.

IF arguments about both degenerate into insults and name calling, BUT you "selectively" proceed with JUST this one, isn't that proof of your contradiction and hypocrisy?

You also equate them as the same "type" of argument. Meaning that each "can not be proven or dis-proven."
What we argue here, is not like that. There is NO proof of the existence/nonexistence of deity other than heresay. However, we have cold hard statistic, mined from study and observational experiment, which has provided real evidence supporting our statement. Evidence that is peer reviewed and conclusive in finding. It isn't "feeling" or "emotion." It is the exact measurement, of black IQ and crime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

You refuse to acknowledge that relative comparisons between groups are distinct from inherent characteristics within a group. To make a relative comparison you just need to demonstrate one group does something more or less than another, to make a claim about an inherent characteristic you need to demonstrate every single member (or at least the vast majority) of a group does or does not do a particular thing BECAUSE they belong to that group.

Inherent "characteristics?" That's quite a contradiction don't you think?
So if a "characteristic" is shared by more than one group, yet is more prominent to a particular group, it isn't widely accepted that it's more inherent to one than the other?

"Inherent" doesn't mean completely isolated to just one thing. It just means that it belongs by nature or habit to a certain thing, and possibly other things. However the huge statistical disparity shows us that blacks and non-whites own it much more than anyone else. Thus it's inherent mostly to them, IN COMPARISON.

You're a moron who needs to look up the MANY definitions which constitute the word "inherent."
IF a group displays the same difference, time and again, then it becomes attributable and inherent to that group. Nothing is 100% all the time moron. Anyone with common sense knows that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

It is bad logic to go from "the majority of men commit more crime" to "men are inherently criminal". If you support that kind of bad logic then you support those extreme feminists that want all woman societies or elitists who want all 120+ IQ societies.

I know it is. That's why I let you make the strawman arguments, while my responses are backed by an entire thread of statistics provided by Matt.

Also, I never said ALL non-whites are "bad." In fact I said the opposite. So again you're trying to use a concrete argument, when in reality you've missed the whole point.

Also, you extended your strawman argument an extra step, to the whole feminism thing. What the hell is wrong with you? Do you really think this will fly when you get in a real court room? A judge would laugh at your comparison model. Life just doesn't work that way bud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

I did not ignore either things, you just don't like my argument against them. Your "huge negative outpouring" is the minority of the populace - your real argument is the majority of black americans should be punished for the behaviour of a minority within their group in order to improve the safety of another group i.e. white americans.

No it wasn't liar. My argument was that blacks are inferior to us in every way, along with other non-whites. My statements include larger groups of data, being considered in totality. Yours continually isolates such and such, to make it seem minimal. Non-whites as a whole, are aiding in the degeneration of our country and provide negative statistic that is either equal to or (usually) larger than that of its WHITE MAJORITY; Which is 70%. That is not something we should be trying to minimize and deny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

An extreme feminist could make the exact same argument, the majority of men should suffer for the behaviour of a minority of them in order to improve the safety of another group i.e. women. Their argument is faulty and so is yours.

What is your obsession with feminism? Mommy slap some "sense" into you too many times.

This is just another strawman argument from you. One isn't happening, while the one we present, is an actuality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

I clearly used your mouldy bread argument against you by pointing out that every slice of bread will have mould on it, the black american slice may be more mouldy than the white american slice but since YOU said you don't pick mould off of bread because you don't want to "risk it" then by your logic you'd throw out both slices.

No, you twisted it with another strawman methodology.

I said it very plainly so that even a moron like you could understand.
I didn't talk about a loaf of bread idiot. I said that if a "piece" of bread (IE A MINORITY) has moldy spots all over it, why would I consider it's overall value, if the lesser decay is enough to make me toss the whole piece? Especially if I'm already full on the sustenance stemming from the fruit of my own labors.

Another way of saying it is this- Why on earth would I consider "benign" blacks as having value, when they are non-beneficial in the first place? The MAJORITY of them have lower IQ, the MAJORITY of them drain our resources, and the MAJORITY of them constitute huge negative statistic within our Nation and value system. If I have knowledge of my own heritage being the most important value creating and sustaining that which is good in our Nation, then why would I accept a bunch of negative uselessness, especially if it means accepting terrible affliction with it? Moreover I believe that statistic as a whole proves that they are beyond "neutral" or "useless." It easily shows that they draw upon resources much more than they put in. To say otherwise is retarded. Maybe you should go preach to the "minority of the minority." Tell them they are overshadowing the "majority of the minority's" uselessness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

The same bad logic. A relative difference is just a relative difference, it doesn't necessarily address inherent attributes.

Really? You've obviously never studied genetics eh? Go walk over to the biology department. You have no idea of what relativity, measurement, and comparative difference are do you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

Differences are easy to demonstrate, inherent attributes are not.

No it isn't something you demonstrate moron. It's something you observe. It is "demonstrated" or displayed by manifested realities and frequency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

Male Americans commit more crime than Female Americans, there may be some crime where the percentages are the SAME, yet overall they deviate in magnitude which shows an overall difference. Simple to understand. To go from that simple understanding to the belief that CRIME is an inseparable attribute to males is BAD LOGIC...the vast majority of men manage not to commit crimes...so how can it be inherent to men???

That's not my argument strawman. You're just trying to apply logic in a illogical manner. Utilizing it as a rigid tool, which will only support your libtarded philosophy. Logic doesn't work that way. It isn't transferable like that in every scenario. Quite the opposite actually. In fact look up the definition of "strawman," and you'll see that it is exactly what you are doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

No, its being portrayed as my beliefs - I stated that clearly, I believe all humans have equal worth. You don't know that I'm not white either so that's a combination of ad hominem and strawman on your part - quite an achievement.

Jews aren't White, just so you know. We don't consider race traitors as such either. They've lost that right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

Beliefs and ideas about moral issues are backed up with logical arguments as well as statistics, I used Matt's own statistics to illustrate my arguments in the first post as well as logic. My doctrine doesn't seek to destroy anything, as a couple of others have pointed out, a belief in equality doesn't actually contradict a belief in White Nationalism.

I never said that. However, it is a basis for excising tumors, benign or otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

You can believe people have equal worth but argue that they are too different to co-exist successfully. You are just so angry, quaere, that somebody doesn't believe exactly what you do that you can't even recognize their ideas aren't actually threatening your cause. Luckily, others do, otherwise your cause would be doomed.

You're damn right I'm angry. For good reasons too. While you play Utopia, and pretend nonsense is reality, I live with the cold hard statistic everyday. Some might choose indoctrinated blind ignorance as a way of ignoring the ills of our society, but I will not. Your ideas threaten my entire race. People like you rarely subscribe to just one idealism like this, without riding in the entire libtard car. "My cause" isn't doomed because of people like me, who will flat out tell you that you are a liar and trying to manipulate logic and words to "expose" fallacious untruths. People here wouldn't take a hundred of your kind, over 1 of me.. ever. How's that minority ratio for you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

As I argued "great achievements" are irrelevant to moral worth, your diatribe doesn't disprove anything. Of the small population you are talking about only a handful of those actually created world changing technology, most people don't do anything particularly remarkable and are entitled to peaceful and happy lives as much as those geniuses are. The purpose of my legitimate argument was to demonstrate.

Yet it took these MORE enlightened masses as a whole, to create the few which changed the world. We never witness that through the non-white. Good trees, bear good fruit. Trees prone to disease, bear diseased fruit. It's the hierarchy of statistic and natural selection dumb a$$. I don't mind anyone living peacefully, but not when it's infringing upon my peace. Non-Whites destroy my peace, and that is a FACT in my experience. I'm not living in another country am I? I live in a WHITE COUNTRY. It should remain that way. You still haven't addressed why everyone else is allowed to have reproductively isolated homelands, while White countries must be the dumping grounds for their unsustainable culture. Just more proof that they are completely inferior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

Just because somebody doesn't agree exactly with your beliefs it doesn't make them an enemy or stupid.

Stupid and ignorant concerning reality and our situation, yes. An enemy- ABSOLUTELY YES! If people walk around excusing the non-White, and not recognizing the value of Whites as being superior, then the world is screwed. We see how much non-whites accomplish without our help. You are either;
Pro-White
or
Pro-White Genocide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

Actually, if there was a vote tomorrow to decide whether an all white country should exist for whites who wanted to live there I would vote in favour of it because I respect the equal right of all people to pursue the life that makes you happy...as long as you aren't destroying other people's lives to achieve it - no double standards there.

That's bull****. Why then, aren't you on non-white sites telling them about the atrocity you're witnessing? This WAS our country, but now that infiltration has occurred we have to "start a new one?" Again, just more self justification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

A strong person doesn't need to continually insult the person they are arguing with nor make make thinly veiled threats about IP addresses, they don't need to exert energy attempting to dismantle arguments that don't even threaten their own beliefs.

You, quaere, seem WEAK

A strong person, stands up and calls a spade for a spade. A strong person will tell you what a moron you are, instead of nonchalantly allowing you to make decisions for them by default guilt or imposed fear. A strong person, calls BS when he hears it. Threaten you? I wish I could. I wish I knew exactly where you were, and it wouldn't bode well for you. Feel lucky that you exist in the realm of the i-net, as my enemy. The "threat" about the ip address, wasn't thinly veiled (although your IP is), and was in response to your-
"Please don't bully me," wimpa$$ whining. I'm not bullying you. Sorry if you see it that way. Sometimes the strong scare the weak and make them feel that way strawman. So go ahead strawman, change your username again, and keep at it. We'll be here every time, ready to take your sneakily presented "fence sitting" position apart, one dismantling argument at a time.

Me, I'm done with you. You're just spouting the same nonsense over and over again. Continually trying to pretend you understand and sympathize, while you tell us that non-whites aren't destroying our country. Saying that in the end, they are ok, and have equal right to "survive" here amongst us. Pay no attention to what is behind the curtain!

Try providing a single link or reference for your position, other than "I believe." It gets old.

I don't know why do you argue with those liberal people, they are blind and they will stay blind. Yes I am racist in terms that I really do care for my race, for my ancestors and future, that makes me a racist? Ok, I'm racist, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't help non-white in trouble or that I am "inhuman" by liberal standards.

Let them live in their "star trek federation"-kumbaya-"we are all same" world, one day they will realize the truth. I consider white liberalists more dangerous for white society than black, hispanic, arabian people all togethar, I don't know if there ever was in human history such naive, blind and I would say "sttupid" people like white liberals, a Sheeps with capital S, they remind me on those hippies from 70's.

I don't know why do you argue with those liberal people, they are blind and they will stay blind. Yes I am racist in terms that I really do care for my race, for my ancestors and future, that makes me a racist? Ok, I'm racist, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't help non-white in trouble or that I am "inhuman" by liberal standards.

Let them live in their "star trek federation"-kumbaya-"we are all same" world, one day they will realize the truth. I consider white liberalists more dangerous for white society than black, hispanic, arabian people all togethar, I don't know if there ever was in human history such naive, blind and I would say "sttupid" people like white liberals, a Sheeps with capital S, they remind me on those hippies from 70's.

Yeah you're right. That's why I said I was ending it. Here's his "big boy" chance at stabbing a White in the dark. Something non-whites are quite comfortable doing. Thanks for the advice.

As for helping non-whites, I think we've done much more than our fair share. I wouldn't piss on one if they were on fire. I more than expect them to feel the same way (hell I know it), because they've done horrible things to me in my life, and to most of the good White people I know. I was even a multicult zombie once. That's why this moron gets me so badly. He pretends we all have equal right to exist, as LONG AS WE AREN'T HARMING OTHER PEOPLES.
YET, that's exactly what non-whites do to us in our Nations. Pointing it out makes us "racist" as you've mentioned. Pointing out their real statistic brings the distraction brigade.

Anyway, like I said above, I'm done with the moron. He can say what he wants. I proved his strawman argument time and again. I pointed out the lack of evidence supporting his position and the mountains which support ours. I pointed out his double standards and manipulation of context. I pointed out his perversion of well understood terminology. He can say what he wants now, he has become inconsequential. AND THAT IS DEFINITIVE.

I say no one gives him the time of day, until he provides realistic argument with some sort of referencing and statistical basis. Not the typical swap outs of logic.

Goodbye strawman, I hope we meet someday on the street. Where I can impose my position upon you.

a) If intelligence is the MOST important thing for humanity then the most intelligent societies should always perform better. If even one country of higher average IQ performs worse than another country of lower average IQ then one or more other factors must be more important than IQ. So why is Russia less developed than Barbados? According to The Human Development Index Russia's development index is 0.755 whereas Barbados' is 0.793 (List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) however according to Richard Lynn's book "Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations" Russia's average IQ is 96 whereas Barbados' is 78 (Title).

Oh cut a crrap, theory of relativity will not help you in this case. Russia had communism, as other eastern european countries, as it turns out, communism was maybe ok on paper but disaster in reality, all of those eastern european countries are slowly matching others white countries. Now, here is the question for you Mr. "white/black relativity", name me a one country with 80% or 90% black society which is actually good for living? I beg you, only one? but with one condition: that particular country should be entire succesfull on it's own, without white men help. What will you say to me now? That european colonialists are guilty for that situation? hahah, I will just laugh at you, because those blacks were on their own for 30 000 years and they created NOTHIN, a ffuccking spear, that't their greatest invention in technology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

A very big difference in IQ has manifested very little difference in development between the two countries, in fact the much lower IQ country is slightly more developed. Clearly intelligence is not the MOST important factor but rather one of many important factors in determining success.

what is the clearly important factor for determing human success? is it maybe a hip hop album? Hair style? Maybe it's color of t-shirt Man, I don't want to insult you, but this sentence of yours: "Clearly intelligence is not the MOST important factor but rather one of many important factors in determining success." is saying everything about you, no comment is needed, you are not only a disgrace to inteligent life-forms but to life-forms themselfs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

Given this, intelligence is only one of many things that determines success - why should IQ alone determine who is equal?

No, are you affraid that you are stuppid? This is not trial for stupidity, if it was, you would be found guilty, but ... this is a discussion about a fact that in general, blacks have lower IQ results, it is a fact that there is no any succesfull black country considering life standard, it's a fact that nowone made slaves of them in last 30 000 years and yet their technology evolved into Spear as highest achivment, yes... this is all facts, now what do you want me to do? That I say that they are equal because otherwise I will hurt your feelings? LOL... ok... "they are equal" happy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NothingIsPermanent

Most people respect the desire to preserve a culture or people, I would vote in favour of WNs having their own all-White communities if it could happen peacefully but the more I read this forum, the more I suspect that wouldn't be possible. It seems a lot of WNs don't want non-whites to even exist. I'm starting to suspect some wouldn't be happy with other "lesser" groups using up space and resources that their "better" people could have

This is a lie... I don't have anything against blacks in their own continent, I wish them everything best, I don't want them in Europe, everyone has the right to preserve his/her heritage, and race is heritage, it's interesting how asia is for asians, africa is for africans, only europe is for everyone? Well, somethin is wrong in that picture isn it?